Lexxie wrote:Under appropriate legal apparatuses be they local, national, international, and by agreement between respective nations, or any combination of these where applicable, this statement hereby serves as public announcement that my private digital conversations are private property and my utterances therein are performance held and claimed under copyright and may not be used, released, or replicated without my permission.

Noted, and ignored.

If you ever make a public statement aimed to further your personal gain at my or someone else's expense, that is in direct contradiction with something you said privately, that is, if you lie, deceive and manipulate, and if publishing the whole, or a part of this private conversation helps in revealing those lies and deceptions, I will gladly and with huge pleasure reveal everything I have that will make the truth known.

It's simple, really. Liars and manipulators such as yourself work in the dark, with 1-to-1 private messages, telling different things to different people, and abusing other people's discretion to their own advantage. Only when things you tell to different people are revealed, can they really see the truth about who you are and how you act.

See, I was a journalist myself, and gained some experience and mindframe that tells me very clearly that truth is one's best friend and shedding light on things can never be bad. I love revealing things. I hate hiding things. I like to spread knowledge of what I have, I hate to withhold it and hate when others are withholding it because that is a strong indication that they have something to hide.

I don't look forward to the response this will get from the banned player, since I fear it may include more of the behaviour which got him banned twice before. However, I don't believe a one-sided statement with false accusations that attempt to hurt others’ reputations should be unjustly allowed to stand alone. I will make a statement in defence of the slandered victims in this drama. I know this will not help me at all and I am likely at high risk of being targeted by the banned player, but I do it anyway to defend the innocent. I apologize that this is long but that’s because I don’t want to ever revisit the subject with comeback responses.

You can avoid reading the full length of the text with this summary: The banned player was banned for real reasons, and all his accusations are part of an abusive pattern that resulted in the ban in the first place, and all people he names and accuses are innocent.

I. RE: Andreas and FreeCiv-Web1. In the first incident, we are led to believe that Corbeau was banned merely for calling Andreas a "PR Disaster". The implication is that Andreas is excessive and petty. However, I later discovered the following: There was a long sustained pattern of abrasive arrogance and insulting in which the recurring pattern was to be put "on notice" for a halt. Whereupon, Corbeau was temporarily put on suspension to be immediately re-instated pending the rather gentle requirement of an apology and some sign of acknowledgment that insulting disrespectful arrogance would be halted. Because he refused to make the simplest statement of "hey sorry, I'll try to be respectful going forward", you could say that Corbeau voluntarily chose to "ban himself”. Far from being petty, Andreas showed magnanimity and later gave Corbeau amnesty without receiving any apology or statement of good will to tone down his abrasive arrogance and dramas. {Note that the banned player then used this "self-banning" as a martyr-victim tool to promote drama and try to hurt the reputation of Freeciv-web and Andreas. Note also he proudly stated he preferred self-banning (and letting his allies down and 'betray' their months of game play), rather than just say 'hey sorry, I'll try to be more friendly and respectful going forward.' }

2. In this second incident, he was also not banned at first. Not learning from before, there was a long pattern of behaviour in the game including disrespect, slander, and cognitive abuse (gas lighting, trolling, etc.) This was radically more subtle and severe than any text he cherry-picked for his post. A player was going to quit the game because it was no longer fun for him, and this player explained to Andreas why this was. This runs counter to Andreas' goal of trying to attract and retain a larger community having fun, so it put Andreas in a difficult situation with respect to a player who already had a long past history of abuse. With what I believe to be measured and moderate fairness, Corbeau was given a nice and gentle warning about it. Not a ban. Once again, instead of altering behaviour and deciding on friendly respect, he again chose to voluntarily "ban himself" and yet again attempted creating another of his own “Drama King" PR Disasters for Andreas and the community. Indeed, the reason we have an ugly drama here again is because he chose it instead of a very simple decision to be nice and reconciliatory. Drama 2.0 included many one-sided spun statements and false facts intended to damage Freeciv-Web, Andreas, the player Schwartz, and he even threw in a slander shot at me. (I had been in repeated contact with him about toning down his abrasive behaviour and offering coaching on how to improve his interactions.) Many play the game on a daily basis with no issues. Corbeau gets them repeatedly. I let the audience contemplate if there might be a reason for this other than a conspiracy of multiple lunatics to randomly target Corbeau.

II. RE: The player Schwartz1. This was the fourth 'incident' of Corbeau souring players in tech/embassy related deals in the area. Note that this is completely legal gameplay not punishable by anything other than "in-game karma": i.e., poor relations with neighbouring nations. Note that in the game in question, G8, the banned player started with good relations with all his neighbors which all became poor relations.Whereas Schwartz has good relations. So, this particular Truth Check will deal more with false accusations which slander Schwartz in the in-game context. Corbeau claims Schwartz agreed to either a one-sided embassy or to pay Corbeau in tech or gold for giving an embassy, and then in a completely random and crazy deranged act, Schwartz broke this deal and whined and complained to Andreas. However, truth checking Corbeau’s own text log and evidence from involved witnesses shows quite the opposite to be the case.

Schwartz wrote:To be honest, I don't think giving tech for a unilateral embassy is a fair trade. If you want tech from me -- and I'm definitely open to that, so I'm not being coy -- I would need at least an embassy in return. I would ask for a gold payment as well, [...] I think information [from having an embassy] would be worth its weight in gold. [in response to the idea of Corbeau not giving an embassy unless Schwartz paid gold, Schw. makes the counter-position that a one-way arrangement would require Corbeau to pay him gold instead]...but again, I will not accept you establishing an embassy without at least giving an embassy in return. That's what I meant by information being worth its [weight] in gold -- otherwise, I would literally ask you to pay me gold to establish an embassy at my city Turtledove....I want an embassy back from you right now, nothing else.

What was omitted from the banned player's story, (since it wasn't helpful in slandering Schwartz), was that Schwartz was to be an intermediary in a deal, and that Corbeau was supposed to simply transfer through Schwartz and receive back from Schwartz, tech from the other party. In anticipation of his previous habit of errant diplomatic behaviour, Corbeau was reminded of the terms of the deal and that an in-game diplomatic issue would be created if he tried to change the deal or piggyback the usual things into it that had soured other deals, or hinder the deal further (he had already not followed through in one aspect of the original agreement). In spite of this, Corbeau dismissed the previous agreement and tried altering the deal and demanded shared vision, Monarchy, the Wheel, shared maps, world map, etc., in return for merely transferring Map Making to someone else.

A week after all this, Corbeau's nation made no offers to return to the original deal or something similar to it, and continued using Schwartz’s “rejection” of the deal as an excuse to maintain an unwanted one-way embassy with Schwartz which by all accounts, including his own admission, represented a hostile act of one-way intelligence on Schwartz's nation. Because Schwartz understandably did not agree to the deal as altered and modified by Corbeau, the other parties for whom Schwartz was intermediary were also 'shafted’. As far as this goes, this is all just in-game karma and legal play, so all this revelation does is set the record straight for Schwartz's in-game reputation. Like it or not, it is a legal and allowed tactic to embassy someone, pretend to do a deal, change the deal to be unacceptable, then gas-light the other and use it as an excuse to have a one-way embassy to gather intelligence. I repeat again, it was and is completely irrelevant to banning or other out-of-game dramas and here we are only defending the victim from the the banned player’s abusive insults and slander.

Gas-lighting is a toxic psychological trick where you wrong someone then blame and insult them for your own wrong actions, or continue to say and agree to one thing while doing another, or appear to implicitly acknowledge their position then flip-flop in contradictory positions as a tactic to frustrate and befuddle someone, or insult them for having a position, actions, thoughts, or feelings that they don’t. This is not the only incident of gas-lighting from the banned player, and this is one of the more mild ones in fact. After Schwartz became upset about the deal, and Corbeau established an embassy in direct violation of his terms that it would require immediate reciprocation of the embassy without payment, or payment in gold if one-way, the following happened:

Corbeau wrote:And, lastly, I will gladly give you embassy. That is the right thing to do anyway. However, that diplomat cost me 30 shields, which can be converted to 60 gold. So I would like half of that back. (* note, read above how this condition was repeatedly admonished prior to embassy establishment as unacceptable and that in fact Schw. would be the one requiring gold if the embassy was to be one-way. *)… And if you actually come to your senses, do send me a note. I don't hold high hopes because your last message seems like deranged rambling, but you never know.

The above is an admittedly mild example of his gas lighting, but the reason this was chosen is that this particular text is present in Corbeau's own above-supplied text, so that the evidence is undebatable since it comes from Corbeau himself. Further gas lighting continues in posts above where Corbeau repeatedly takes it upon himself to falsely declare the position/thoughts of the other party, i.e., that he wanted the embassy under these terms of non-reciprocation without payment. Proof of this gas lighting is easy enough to establish with the text above or seemingly unnecessarily, a public statement from Schwartz. However, I want to stress that all this is completely unrelated to the banning drama. More relevant to the banning drama is the far worse text which for some reason was not passed on to us, which has Corbeau going on to slander Schwartz to other players, where terms like "deranged", "lunatic", and "idiot" were repeatedly used and spread around to slander Schwartz's reputation. One look at the tone of his posts above should indicate this is not so incredible. This is not limited to some 'misunderstanding' over only this one event, but indeed, Corbeau used the same terms to describe all his in-game neighbours. The trolling and gas-lighting and slander were the reason the player felt like quitting. The violation of “be polite to other players” in combination with a long past history of abuse, were the reason he was given a gentle warning. I repeat, you cannot be banned for deceptive or unfair diplomatic tactics, strong-arming, or any other in-game aggression or tactic. You could be banned for a repeated pattern of arrogant insults and slander or “toxicity”, however. Rather than correct himself after Andreas’ gentle warning, the banned player predictably took the warning as an opportunity for yet another "drama king" voluntary self-banning martyr-victimology theatrical episode, to attempt to further insult and injure more parties.

To the audience: Please, please do not respond with something to the effect that anything allowed by game mechanics is legal and deception is part of the Art of War, so therefore what Corbeau did should be allowed and he shouldn’t be banned. We know this. This was to clear the record on false allegations on Schwartz’s in-game reputation. The “self-banning” was voluntarily self-imposed by Corbeau himself after he was warned about the other inappropriate behaviour of impoliteness, insults, slander, and psychological toxicity and chose to turn a gentle warning into an auto-martyrdom victim event to create a drama stage to attack and insult admins and other players even more.

~*~

Conclusion. (Or, how can we make something good from this?) I encourage the banned player not to attempt to further injure the above innocent parties, as this will truly ‘burn bridges’ for the possibility of reconciliation. I would encourage the banned player to show he is humble and respectful and able to make gestures which attempt to repair relations, admit mistakes, show good will, and a desire to set things right and back to friendly and fun. With the players Schwartz, this is just optional and shows gentlemanly good will. With respect to Freeciv-web and Andreas, though I have no power over any decision, I believe it would promote healing and increase the chances of eventual reinstatement. The world now watches whether he will respectfully reach out with good will and questions on how to create reconciliation, or publicly prove the truth of the charges against him by making further defamatory attacks.

Lexxie wrote:I. RE: Andreas and FreeCiv-Web1. In the first incident, we are led to believe that Corbeau was banned merely for calling Andreas a "PR Disaster". The implication is that Andreas is excessive and petty. However, I later discovered the following: There was a long sustained pattern of abrasive arrogance and insulting in which the recurring pattern was to be put "on notice" for a halt.

I believe that it would be fair to share with the community your discoveries because if you don't, someone with less information may call you a liar and manipulator.

Whereupon, Corbeau was temporarily put on suspension

Oh

to be immediately re-instated

..after seven games have been shut down, after new one has been going on for, what, a month...

"Immediately" may be in geological terms.

pending the rather gentle requirement of an apology and some sign of acknowledgment that insulting disrespectful arrogance would be halted.

Please quote the "insulting disrespectful arrogance".

Because he refused to make the simplest statement of "hey sorry, I'll try to be respectful going forward", you could say that Corbeau voluntarily chose to "ban himself”.

... after I was banned by the admin... I really wish there was more audience here.

2. In this second incident, he was also not banned at first. Not learning from before, there was a long pattern of behaviour in the game including disrespect, slander, and cognitive abuse (gas lighting, trolling, etc.)

Quotes, please.

This was radically more subtle and severe than any text he cherry-picked for his post. A player was going to quit the game because it was no longer fun for him, and this player explained to Andreas why this was.

I invited everybody to inspect my communication with Schwartz and point out the slanderous and abusive behaviour. "Everybody" means you, too. So please, don't be shy.

Drama 2.0 included many one-sided spun statements and false facts

Please list the "false facts" and show that they are false. No, ok, just list them. I'm curious.

intended to damage Freeciv-Web, Andreas, the player Schwartz, and he even threw in a slander shot at me. (I had been in repeated contact with him about toning down his abrasive behaviour and offering coaching on how to improve his interactions.) Many play the game on a daily basis with no issues. Corbeau gets them repeatedly. I let the audience contemplate if there might be a reason for this other than a conspiracy of multiple lunatics to randomly target Corbeau.

I'll comment this "many play the game with no issues".

Two people stopped playing the game because you, Lexxie, wore them out. I did not make this up nor is this my personal interpretation. They told me this literally. They are normal people, generally patient and don't like conflict. I have no way of knowing if there were others. Then, apparently, it was my turn.

I am not like them. So you poked one wrong hornet's nest.

II. RE: The player Schwartz1. This was the fourth 'incident' of Corbeau souring players in tech/embassy related deals in the area. Note that this is completely legal gameplay not punishable by anything other than "in-game karma": i.e., poor relations with neighbouring nations. Note that in the game in question, G8, the banned player started with good relations with all his neighbors which all became poor relations.

I don't know where you got to "fourth". The previous example was Darkdusk with whom an exchange of embassies was agreed, or so I thought. Then a few weeks of silence and then, when my Diplomat appeared on his territory, he started screaming that it is a declaration of war.

As if someone swayed him to change his opinion.

Who are others?

Corbeau claims Schwartz agreed to either a one-sided embassy or to pay Corbeau in tech or gold for giving an embassy, and then in a completely random and crazy deranged act, Schwartz broke this deal and whined and complained to Andreas. However, truth checking Corbeau’s own text log and evidence from involved witnesses shows quite the opposite to be the case.

Schwartz wrote:To be honest, I don't think giving tech for a unilateral embassy is a fair trade. If you want tech from me -- and I'm definitely open to that, so I'm not being coy -- I would need at least an embassy in return. I would ask for a gold payment as well, [...] I think information [from having an embassy] would be worth its weight in gold. [in response to the idea of Corbeau not giving an embassy unless Schwartz paid gold, Schw. makes the counter-position that a one-way arrangement would require Corbeau to pay him gold instead]...but again, I will not accept you establishing an embassy without at least giving an embassy in return. That's what I meant by information being worth its [weight] in gold -- otherwise, I would literally ask you to pay me gold to establish an embassy at my city Turtledove....I want an embassy back from you right now, nothing else.

Cool quotes. here is one from me that was basically the last part of decent discussion:

"However, all that said, here is my offer: you can have my map, also vision as long as I know with whom you are sharing vision and the agreement that I can withdraw it if it goes too far. Also, your word that this will not be used against me by you or, to your knowledge, by anyone you transfer information to, in any form.

As for technologies, I desperately need them and for them am willing to promise that I will give you all technologies I research myself and also those that I receive from others and am allowed to transfer to you."

There was no reply for four days. I believed this was in line of what he asked, I went on and created an embassy. Four days later, an explosion occurred, not asking for embassy, not asking for map, not asking for anything, just exploding.

As if someone else pushed the button.

In spite of this, Corbeau dismissed the previous agreement and tried altering the deal and demanded shared vision, Monarchy, the Wheel, shared maps, world map, etc., in return for merely transferring Map Making to someone else.

Unfortunately, no screenshots available so I'll have to rely to my memory and say that there were three items being proposed to go to each side. Conveniently, don't remember what those were, but one of them was an embassy toward Schwartz.

A week after all this, Corbeau's nation made no offers to return to the original deal or something similar to it,

Yes, because he literally said he is cutting off communication with me. So please share the dates, when was this "a week after this"?

(A lot of bantering about "gaslighting" skipped as irrelevant.)

More relevant to the banning drama is the far worse text which for some reason was not passed on to us, which has Corbeau going on to slander Schwartz to other players, where terms like "deranged", "lunatic", and "idiot" were repeatedly used and spread around to slander Schwartz's reputation.

Pretty little liar, aren't you?

"Deranged" was "deranged rambling", in conversation with Schwartz, "lunatic" was in conversation with you (and I'm not even sure I was referring to Schwartz, more like to you) and "idiot" was here.So, technically, yes, there was more than one player which justifies the use of plural. This was you and your client. So, basically, I was slandering Schwartz and you to Schwartz and you.

Some more irrelevant banter skipped.

I encourage the banned player not to attempt to further injure the above innocent parties, as this will truly ‘burn bridges’ for the possibility of reconciliation.

Quoted for beauty.

The world now watches whether he will respectfully reach out with good will and questions on how to create reconciliation, or publicly prove the truth of the charges against him by making further defamatory attacks.

Anyway, to get a bit straight with the Schwartz embassy thing, it seemed Schwartz kept repeating "you can establish embassy IF..." I was perfectly willing to negotiate this "if" for as long as possible and in the end an agreement would have been reached... if.

Unfortunately, Schwartz BAILED OUT the moment an exchange was supposed to happen. Any kind of exchange. He did not try to negotiate. He did not threaten "you give me this or else". He simply said "I'm not talking to you anymore" and switched off. As if someone else got what they wanted through other channels and this one wasn't needed anymore.

Funny how in all games I've ever played I've always been able to reach an agreement with everybody I attempted it. I'm talking dozens of people.

Reminds me of the days when there was lots of talks about breaking deals, behaving unethically and doing stuff that goes to the grey area.

For some people this is more like a role game and for some something they take more seriously. And then we have the role players who take stuff seriously.

I'm not sure what really happened. Someone said something, something else was said + done and embassies are kind of broken or a game feature that's not really realistic and shouldn't maybe be called embassies.

Someone might add to the wish list a wish about getting rid of the existing embassies. Currently there is probably only one way to do that with game mechanics and even that was considered a bug

Maybe listing the features needed to fix situations like this one would be something that could be done. I didn't even remember all the talks and complaints about the embassy system. Our fix to this was to give everyone an embassy with everyone. But with cost and only late mid game. That's when it also makes sense from gameplay point of view.

I don't think embassy" is a broken concept. There are two very distinct cases: you establish it with consent or you establish it without consent. In the first case it's an embassy, in the other is an "agenture" (not sure of the proper EngRish word)... So not really broken, only slightly misleading to noobs.

Actually, there is a way to make embassies exclusively hostile creations. Allow "contact by units". It's a server setting: once your units touch each other, you are in contact and can negotiate (I think that's how it works, never tested it, actually), and "contact" remains for X turns after your units contacted. This way everything can be done (I think) without embassy and then embassy can be proclaimed a hostile act.

But then, again, more distant nations with no units to be contacted can decide to create permanent embassies so we're back to start: consent: friendly, no consent: hostile.

Anyway, I think secrecy is overrated in Civilization. Throughout history basic information such as general state of funds, tech level and government were widely known to all neighbours, you didn't need special agents to know *that*.

The unwanted diplomats creating unwanted embassies are usually relatively easy to block and kill if they come too close. I usually advice to kill first and talk later if there is a diplomat able to reach your cities. All unwanted diplomats are targets for most players

The other situation is when the enemy takes advantage of the unitwaittime, checks a turn when you probably won't be online soon enough, move in just before tc and then establish the embassy at the first possible moment. Lots of veteran players do this stuff. Very effective

I spoke to Schwartz earlier in that game about who I thought was near his location on the map. As I recall, I told him that he should talk to Corbeau and ally with Corbeau. It seems that did not work out. The conflict seems to be that Corbeau got an embassy in with a diplomat (which is what you need to do to begin trading tech) and then they were unable to make deals or get along in general.

Corbeau's playing style isn't to be a troll. His playing style is to be a loud porcupine. If he thinks you are being obnoxious toward him in the slightest you will get a verbal quill. There will be a lot of angry words and then there will be a peace deal. Corbeau is one of five or six players I would always ally up with because despite his curmudgeon antics he will be reliable with sharing tech and be straight forward with you especially if he doesn't agree with you.

Don't take anything Lexxie says seriously about anyone. I was one of her staunchest of allies in many games and even I had enough. We had a very public falling out on my discord League of Civs page. In public she will come at you from the high horse of morality as either the victim or as the victim's advocate. In private she will come at you like a stalker. It got so bad I decided it was best to delete the League of Civs page and just take a break from freeciv Longturn all together. I had to block her on Discord. To be her ally you must become her servant and do as she says. Otherwise she will flip out on you in private messages. If you are not available at the moment she types something, she will demand to know why you are ghosting her. I was out in the woods with my Army Reserve unit. She will also drunk text you as she has done not just to me but to my brother, Butters. Once she decides to turn on you she will begin a smear campaign. Many allies from various games have talked to me how she threw a dictionary of words to convince them that I was evil. She will also rant about putting Voodoo curses onto people she is angry at like Sasake. Once she decides that you are her enemy she'll coerce anyone who will listen to her to come at you. That's how she treated Sasake and Malljepiete. If she didn't think you were doing enough against those two she would flip out on you.

Lexxie had her falling out with Corbeau recently mainly because he will not bow down and do as she says. She flipped out on him like she would with me and he was unwilling to take that as I did and he immediately checked her. I rather enjoyed their falling out not because of my falling out with Lexxie, but because Corbeau kept sticking up for Lexxie when I had problems with her. It was Corbeau who talked me into being her ally in the first place. He has stuck up for her many times and now I get to enjoy my "I told you so."

mooreinstore wrote:If you are not available at the moment she types something, she will demand to know why you are ghosting her. I was out in the woods with my Army Reserve unit.

Oh, yes! I was late on a deal for two days, also because I was in the woods for the weekend and shitstorm happened

The lesson: when dealing with Lexxie, DON'T GO INTO THE WOODS, IT WILL END BAD FOR YOU!!!

I rather enjoyed their falling out not because of my falling out with Lexxie, but because Corbeau kept sticking up for Lexxie when I had problems with her. It was Corbeau who talked me into being her ally in the first place. He has stuck up for her many times and now I get to enjoy my "I told you so."

Yes, another friend told me a similar thing, she pressed on him hard, he told me, I didn't believe him. She seemed normal from a distance, but when you come closer, shit happens.

So, I would like to formally apologise for not paying more attention to my friends' words and not taking their side. This is an internet environment, personal characters are more difficult to distinguish, it takes much more time to get to know someone and one easily makes a mistake. Point taken, can't say experience will be learned from because it's still internet and it's still difficult to judge people we meet, but yes, "I told you so" is completely deserved.